Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys.  I keep hoping that one day I'll say something that finally makes it clear what I'm trying to point to. 

For the minute - just forget everything you've ever learned about electric power measurement - EXCEPT this.  The amount of current flow measured at the one terminal of a supply source - will precisely equal the amount of current flow measured at the other.  Given a measured voltage at the supply - then vi applies.  Amps times voltage and that's the value of the wattage.  NOW.  What that points to is this simple fact.  WHATEVER it is that the circuit manages with that current flow - precisely as much always goes back to the plug or the terminal as was first supplied by that plug or that terminal.  Here there is NO argument.  Classical measurement is absolutely 'on the money'.

As a rule we use AC grid supplies which, in turn, use motorised generators - to give us our electricity supply.  The assumption is that when the rotor turns 180 degrees one gets a 'forward' flow, say, of current.  Then, by the same token, when the rotor turns the next 180 degrees one gets a 'backward' flow of current, so to speak.  And energy was applied to get the rotor to turn through each of those two phases.  BUT.  No one has interrupted that 'turn' - AFTER the first 180 degrees - to see what happens when the energy supply is removed.

In our tests what is shown is that when you DO interrupt that current flow - then you get the same value of current flow BACK to the supply to recharge it.  It doesn't cost more energy to turn the motor.  It only requires an interruption to enable a second half or a 'shadow cycle'.  In other words the second half of that sinewave is actually present as a potential in the material of the circuit itself.  It just needs a 'chance' - time - to allow it to manifest. 

Theoretically the test is simple.  Just take an AC supply source.  Route the postive to one load then route the negative to a second load.  Then allow the postive to return to the negative terminal and the negative to the positive terminal - and you will get that same equivalence.  But with the added benefit of inducing all that potential energy from the circuit material itself - provided only and always that there's suitable inductive or conductive components in that circuitry. But here your results are restricted to the grid or supply frequency.  Alternatively, which we've actually tested, put an AC supply through a bridge rectifier.  And then, simply do the same thing.  Interrupt the flow of current and you'll get the benefit of that returning cycle.  And here your results are NOT restricted to the supply frequency.  You can generate something that the circuit material prefers. Our test results were unequivocal - except that our diodes were constrained to certain values that were NOT compatible with the voltage generated in those components from that supply voltage.  Therefore we used a variac.  And therefore the argument was that there was no proven evidence of OU.   

And the fact is that on a DC supply the only advantage is that the results are then unequivocal.  On an AC supply the results will be endlessly debated.  Therefore are we now simply testing DC.  But that 'equivalence'.  Power at the terminals are ALWAYS equivalent.  But the energy dissipated as heat bears ABSOLUTELY no relation to the energy delivered and returned.  It's always some value in excess. 

It's really SO, so simple. 

Regards,
Rosemary

edited- all over the place.  Sorry

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Effectively, what I'm claiming - right or wrong - is that the only time you can get the benefit of a second cycle from a spinning rotor is either if you can commutate the turns to allow for a break - to take advantage of appropriate circuit material.  In other words you allow for a break in the supply current and allow it a chance to generate current from the circuit material.  Or perhaps, if you can thread a wire through the centre of that rotor - so that it can take advantage of the spin.  In other words you need to 'pick up' that second cycle from within the spinning rotor itself - always obviously, assuming that the rotor has got the magnets on it.  In effect it would be a second sympathetic circuit of pure copper connected to both terminals of the battery - but with a blocking diode at the positive terminal to prevent a discharge - but enable a recharge cycle.  Otherwise it would not be connected to the main circuit anywhere.  And the copper would need to run through the centre of that spinning rotor.  That way - there's the real possibility of inducing a second cycle of current which can be used to replenish the battery supply source.  Else I just can't see any OU benefits in using a motor.  It entirely defeats me.

Added.  And by the way - I don't see a benefit in placing another solenoid around the motor - because one half of the induced current will conflict with the justification of that rotor's spin.  It needs to be a single wire - inside the armature of the rotor itself.  And it needs to be pretty jolly thick.  Lots of material.  And I'm not sure of the positioning of the magnets.  But I think - if they're placed that they oppose each other - then there's the real chance of inducing a DC current flow.  Then again.  You'd need to check that polarisation that the induced current flow is correctly biased to recharge rather than discharge.  But it should work. 
Regards,
Rosemary

Sorry.  I keep adding here.  But as no-one ever answers me I assume there's no-one will notice in any event.  The point is this.  Everyone keeps trying to prove numbers on a motor.  It's really difficult.  But if one can organise a return flow of current that replenishes a battery supply then - hopefully - one can put that question to bed.  There will be clear evidence of greater efficiencies.  And I appreciate that energy from a motor is certainly more usable than energy from a solid supply.  It's easier to exploit in our cars and what have you.  And it may go some way towards 'closing' the system which is what seems to be a critical measure of OU technologies.  I had always assumed to reach COP>1 would be enough - for goodness sake.

[SkyWatcher123]

Hi Rosemary, nice to see your still sharing your thoughts. Some of your latest posts sure remind me of Joseph Newmans research findings. I've been playing with the JT circuit and other solid state circuits lately. I have to chuckle at this quote from mark,

2. There is little of no censorship, no MEN In Black etc. What there is is hundreds of claims that can never be validated or replicated.

I can't wait till the day when people stand up for their fellow humanity on mass, it's getting a little embarrassing to me. Come on folks, aren't we more than that. I mean you can't live in those bodies forever, take a stand if you can and do what's in the best interest of all humanity.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Rosemary, nice to see your still sharing your thoughts. Some of your latest posts sure remind me of Joseph Newmans research findings. I've been playing with the JT circuit and other solid state circuits lately. I have to chuckle at this quote from mark, I can't wait till the day when people stand up for their fellow humanity on mass, it's getting a little embarrassing to me. Come on folks, aren't we more than that. I mean you can't live in those bodies forever, take a stand if you can and do what's in the best interest of all humanity.

Hello SkyWatcher.  Always a pleasure to see you around.  Yes.  I'm still rabbiting on.  I keep hoping that I'll be understood.  One day.  LOL.  But I suspect I need to make my posts more 'learned' and 'technically exact'.  It must be rather offensive for you guys to plod through these rather lame descriptions.  In any event.  If they're ever understood - then I am of the opinion that this is where that required extra energy is coming from.  It actually comes from inductive/conductive components in the circuit itself.  In other words it is NOT stored energy.  It's actually class one primary energy flow - induced according to inductive laws - and precisely in line with Einstein's genius insights which require that mass somehow relates to energy. 

I actually go out of my way to try and keep the posts simple.  It's not entirely required.  I suppose with a bit of effort I could interest those who are better versed with exact scientific vocabularies.  But there's always that hope that other ignoramus' such as myself - will be able to wrap their minds around all this.  LOL.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Golly - I think I deleted that post.  I can't seem to find it.  And I'm too tired to look for it.  I'll check again in the morning.

Sorry if it's gone. 
Rosemary

yes.  It's gone.  I must have deleted it.  Anyway.  It's about magnets.  But I'll report in the morning.